I, too, thank the Minister for her long explanation. I am sure that I learnt a number of things. I shall apply my comments to the Cornwall order and, in doing so, I declare an interest: there is a possibility of my being a candidate in that election.
The most important thing about this issue is democracy. I feel strongly that, with a new local authority as important as Cornwall unitary will be, representing some 500,000 citizens, it is important that that authority has renewed and legitimate democratic control early in its life. The authority starts on 1 April but we will have to wait until 4 June to hold elections, as that is the earliest possible date. But we are now able to hold elections. I welcome that strongly, as do a number of my colleagues in Cornwall. At this time of unprecedented economic challenges, it is important that local authorities have proper leadership and the legitimacy to move forward, agree strategies and plans, and implement them. It is important for the business community in particular to know the direction of a local authority. To have left matters to the end of the year, with a none-too-legitimate interim executive in the mean time, would have been far from satisfactory. From all those points of view, this is a good decision.
My only concern is that there will be 123 members. I have just received news that the Government of the Czech Republic, which hold the EU presidency, have just fallen. It occurred on a vote of 101 out of 200 members of the Czech Parliament. If 200 MPs can represent the whole of the Czech Republic, an EU member state, then the figure of 123 for Cornwall is perhaps rather large. However, I recognise entirely that the Government accepted the recommendations of the local authority. Those are purely my personal views.
Although I accept the Minister’s explanation, there were a number of clear clerical errors in the initial boundary review that could have been put right. There are a couple of anomalies, particularly in north Cornwall, and I regret that they were not put right. However, all the boundaries—into which parish councillors in particular have put so much work with their recommendations—can be put right during the term of office and can be made perfect, if these things ever are perfect, by the time of the next elections.
The noble Lord mentioned Devon. Although it is nothing to do with this order, I would plead with the Government not to have another unitary authority as small as some of the existing ones in the traditional, historic Devon area, and to make Devon outside Plymouth and Torbay one unitary authority. Neither the business community nor possibly anybody outside the City of Exeter itself can understand why a second option, an enlarged Exeter, is still on the table, because it just would not work. But that is for another day.
Local Government (Structural Changes) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provision) Order 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Teverson
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 March 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Local Government (Structural Changes) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provision) Order 2009.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c206GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:34:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_542682
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_542682
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_542682